Zampaga v. Nerida

 Zampaga v. Nerida

G.R. No. 239918

January 11, 2023

 

FACTS:

                The petitioners, relying on the cases of Kapunan v. Casilan (Kapunan) and Ong v. Ong (Ong), argue that the formal acceptance of a donation by the minor's legal representative is required only in onerous and conditional donations, and not in pure donations. Allegedly, since the subject Deeds of Donation executed by Amado N. Nerida (Amado) in favor of Johnnie, a minor, are pure and not onerous donations, the formal acceptance of Johnnie's legal representative is not required for their validity.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the formal acceptance of a donation by the minor's legal representative is required only in onerous and conditional donations, and not in pure donations.

 

HELD:

                It is explicit from the foregoing provisions (Art. 741 & Art. 749 of the Civil Code) that while minors may become donees, their acceptance should be done through their parents or legal representatives. Further, in case of donation of immovable property, the same must be made in a public document and the acceptance thereof be made in the same deed or in a separate public instrument; in cases where the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor should be notified thereof in an authentic form, to be noted in both instruments. As explained by the eminent civilist, Arturo M. Tolentino, if the donation requires a formal or written acceptance, such as the donation of immovable property, the acceptance of the minor donee can be made only through its parents or legal representatives:

Capacity to Accept — Minors and incapacitated persons do not have the capacity to make a formal acceptance of a donation; the intervention of their parents or legal representatives is required by [Article 741]. We believe, however, that in pure donations, a minor or incapacitated person may validly receive a donation of personal property when made orally with simultaneous delivery. But when the donation requires a formal or written acceptance, or it imposes obligations upon the donee, the acceptance can be made only through the parents or legal representatives of the minor or incapacitated donee. We believe that the present article merely states the view of Manresa in interpreting the provisions of article 626 of the old Civil Code. That article required the intervention of the legal representatives of incapacitated donees in conditional or onerous donations;but Manresa opined that even if the donation were pure, if written acceptance is required, such acceptance must be made through the legal representatives. Thus, contrary to the petitioners' stance, regardless of whether the donation is pure or onerous, since a minor does not have the capacity to make a formal acceptance of the donation, the same can be made only through the intervention of its parents or legal representative. Plainly, in case of donation of immovable property in favor of a minor, the condition of formal acceptance is fulfilled only through the written acceptance of the parents or legal representatives. In this case, the subject donations failed to comply with the required formal acceptance by Johnnie's mother or legal representative.

                It bears noting that where the deed of donation fails to show the acceptance, or where the formal notice of the acceptance, made in a separate instrument, is either not given to the donor or else not noted in the deed of donation and in the separate acceptance, the donation is null and void . Consequently, having failed to establish compliance with the indispensable requirement of written acceptance, the Deeds of Donation are therefore null and void.